Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), so the description focuses on scope: this is public market data about someone else's wallet, never the user's. It also explains that `backfill_state` reflects whether Moby has finished indexing, which tells the agent results may be incomplete. It stops short of describing latency, error behavior, or why idempotentHint is false.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Core purpose and the sibling routing rule are front-loaded, which is the right structure. The closing warning is somewhat redundant, restating the 'not the user's own data' point across two sentences, which slightly dilutes an otherwise tight definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation, yet the description still names the key metrics. Combined with the scope warning and the sibling pointer, nothing an agent needs to select and call this tool correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%, but the undocumented `network` parameter is a const with a default ('solana'), so it is effectively self-documenting. `wallet_address` is already described in the schema, and the description adds only the notion of a 'TRACKED WHALE' from a WhaleWatch feed — marginal value beyond structured fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (retrieve the full track record for a tracked whale) and enumerates the returned metrics: win rate, realized PnL, trade count, hold time, backfill_state. It explicitly names the sibling `get_whale_wallet_profile` as the broader alternative, so an agent can separate the two without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit use case ('judge whether a wallet seen in a WhaleWatch feed is actually good before weighting its activity') and an explicit routing rule to `get_whale_wallet_profile` when holdings and follow state are also needed. It also draws a hard line against the `get_my_*` family for personal data.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.